[2025:RJ-JP:36409] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4273/2024 Namit Mehta Son Of Shri Ramesh Mehta, Resident Of Plot No. B- 95 A, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Kanwar Singh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Resident Of Bansur, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Singh Jhala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 09/09/2025 1. Accused-petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, to challenge the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bansur, on a criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 u/s. 138 of NI Act and whereunder, cognizance for offence u/s. 138 of NI Act for dishonour of cheque of ICICI Bank, bearing No. 000127, amounting Rs.6 lacs, has been taken against the petitioner. 2. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the cheque has been issued from a Current Account No.679805601610 of ICICI Bank, which stands in the name of M/s. Greenfield Food Products, of which two persons, namely, Kanhaiya Lal Gurjar & Sunil Tiwari, are partners. Accused-petitioner has no locus or nexus with the partnership firm- M/s. Greenfield Food Products, [2025:RJ-JP:36409] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4273/2024] hence, in that view, cognizance taken against the accused petitioner, is bad in law. In addition, his contention is that in the criminal complaint, respondent has neither impleaded the partnership firm- M/s. Greenfield Food Products, nor its two partners. 3. The another contention of counsel for petitioner is that the cheque in question bearing No.000127, was dishonoured by the Bank for the reason “Alteration require drawers authentication”. As per complaint, complainant presented the cheque second time as well and the cheque in question was again dishonoured for the same reason. The presentation of cheque for the second time, without consent of accused-petitioner, who is the signatory of the cheque, is impermissible in law and on that count, no cognizance for offence u/s. 138 of NI Act, against the petitioner could have been taken. 4. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the averments of complaint as also the impugned order of cognizance. 5. A bare perusal of complaint goes to show that the complainant averred therein that accused petitioner obtained Rs.40 lacs as credit from the complainant and in order to make repayment of same, issued as many as seven cheques, including the cheque in question. The details of cheques have been detailed out in Para No.1 of the complaint. In the complaint, complainant has referred a written agreement dated 27.02.2022, allegedly executed by accused petitioner in conformity to clearance of the aforesaid cheques. It has further been averred that after dishonour of the cheque in question, complainant issued a legal notice on 01.06.2023 to accused petitioner, which was served [2025:RJ-JP:36409] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4273/2024] upon petitioner, but was not replied. Hence, the criminal complaint has been filed. 6. In support of averments made in the complaint, complainant deposed his statements u/s 200 Cr.PC and after considering all avermets of complaint, statements of complainant and the other material, the Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 21.07.2023, took cognizance for offence u/s. 138 of NI Act against petitioner. 7. It is noteworthy that certified copy of cheque in question has not been placed on record by the petitioner, however, counsel for petitioner during course of arguments has shown certified copy of cheque in question and admits that the cheque bears signature of accused-petitioner Namit Mehta for and on behalf of M/s. Greenfield Food Products. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the cheque has been issued under the signature of accused petitioner for and on behalf of M/s. Greenfield Food Products, the plea of having no nexus with such partnership firm and non-impleadment of firm M/ s. Greenfield Food Products or its two partners, named hereinabove, can be raised by the petitioner to defend the accusation of offence u/s. 138 of NI Act, which is rebutable, hence such plea can be considered on merits by the trial Court itself. On the basis of such plea, order of cognizance cannot be declared as bad in law, more so when as per averments made in the criminal complaint, coupled with execution of agreement by petitioner in favour of complainant to acknowledge responsibility to honour his cheque in question and other ancillary facts, ingredients to constitute offence u/s. 138 of NI Act against accused petitioner, is made out. [2025:RJ-JP:36409] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4273/2024] 9. As far as objection in respect of presenting the cheque second time after being dishonoured for the reason “Alteration require drawers authentication” is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that law permits complainant to present the cheque twice within the prescribed period of limitation. Be that as it may, the plea of petitioner that cheque was presented without his consent, may be raised by petitioner in the cross-examination of complainant. Indisputably, petitioner has not denied receipt of the legal notice, allegedly issued by the complainant and no reply to the legal notice, has been given by the petitioner. 10. In view of above, at the stage of taking cognizance, this Court is not inclined to quash the order of cognizance on the contentions raised by the counsel for petitioner. However, it is hereby observed that objections raised by petitioner may be taken by him during course of trial, since same, at the most, fall within the category of his defence, to contest the criminal complaint and for seeking acquittal from offence u/s. 138 of NI Act. 11. With the aforesaid observations, however without interfering with order impugned, instant misc. petition is disposed of. 12. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 13. A copy of this Order be sent to trial Court to proceed further in the trial. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/113